Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah looking back at the conversation, I think seaward didn't mean to make any implication, the structure of the post just made it seem that way to me. Moving on.

When is the sentencing?

The sentencing hearings are starting today, if they aren't already happening.

I have no idea if that means a decision will be reached any time soon, though.

A woman trapped in a man's body?! Ya don't say Corporal.

All this talk of a 120 year sentence is pretty damn excessive. You have people in wall street who caused the recession (arguably doing more damage to normal people) getting a slap off the wrist and probably walking into another well paid job.

I agree that Manning deserves some sort of punishment for what he did (10 years maximum would suffice) but it's hard not to come to the conclusion that this is a political decision, that Manning is being harshly treated for embarrassing the USA.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Somebody made the point that he was a traitor and should be severely dealt with. My points is that sometimes you have to look at the reasons why people become traitors. Sometimes, it's morally justified, other times it is not, hence the historical examples.

Except that Washington was part of a group of people who founded a new nation. If they had lost then that argument would have merit.

Robert E. Lee and Jeff Davis ceceeded from the US, also forming a "new nation" which was completely legal to do at the time.


The guy who blew up the Fast and Furious thing with the guns? Yeah, that was definitely moral, and a whistle blower situation. This kid? Not a fat chance in Hades.

We're getting slightly OT here, but as far as Lincoln was concerned, the confederacy was a civil insurrection and had no rights under international law. That was what the USA told Britain in order to dissuade her from aiding the south. I agree that winners like Washington make their own rules, but it doesn't change the fact that technically, they are traitorous scum!

This is the military, not Wall Street. He took an oath, bound by law. He signed contracts.

A higher standard was expected of him. As such he will be and should be treated that way.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
All this talk of a 120 year sentence is pretty damn excessive. You have people in wall street who caused the recession (arguably doing more damage to normal people) getting a slap off the wrist and probably walking into another well paid job.

I agree that Manning deserves some sort of punishment for what he did (10 years maximum would suffice) but it's hard not to come to the conclusion that this is a political decision, that Manning is being harshly treated for embarrassing the USA.

I suggest you look up the sentencing guidelines for the crimes he was convicted of. Nothing to do with politics, everything to do with what he is convicted of. Additionally, comparing the results of one trial to another (or a case that never went to trial) is of pretty limited worth. The judge in this case had nothing to do with Wall Street prosecutions or lack there of and her decision is based on the merits of the case brought against Manning, nothing else.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
All this talk of a 120 year sentence is pretty damn excessive.

Then you probably wouldn't be fond of my position that we ought to shoot him.

Back in the mid 90s I knew a guy who tried that to get out of a Korea assignment. When the commander told him 'nope, you going' he came back with polaroids which, in the words of the commander, were "graphic and convincing". He ended up not going to Korea and was a civilian pretty quickly.

We had one similar Except he claimed he was Bisexual to avoid deployment to Afghanistan. Commander called JAG who had to debate/look it up/laugh their arse off. JAG called back saying he can go because he still likes girls Then he refused to do his family care plan. 14 Yrs flushed

 Jihadin wrote:

Back in the mid 90s I knew a guy who tried that to get out of a Korea assignment. When the commander told him 'nope, you going' he came back with polaroids which, in the words of the commander, were "graphic and convincing". He ended up not going to Korea and was a civilian pretty quickly.

We had one similar Except he claimed he was Bisexual to avoid deployment to Afghanistan. Commander called JAG who had to debate/look it up/laugh their arse off. JAG called back saying he can go because he still likes girls Then he refused to do his family care plan. 14 Yrs flushed

That's crazy... Afghanistan I can kind of see more then Korea, given the much greater risk of life and limb, but yeah, still crazy.

So he didn't like being in the military and struggled with his gender and sexuality, how is the indicative that he's lying about his motivations for leaking the information? He's been an open book on everything. The alternative perspective I hear being offered is essentially he's a self absorbed fringe dwelling character and the leaking was his only possible escape from the military. Somehow that seems like bs. The fact that he maintained the level of access to sensitive data even after his less than in the closeted struggle and his acting out says more about the military's utter incompetence than manning's apparent "fallacious motivations" for leaking.

There seems to be an assertion that all the struggles with his identity, gender and sexuality was some kind of klingeresque act to get out the military or that somehow if true those revelations makes him a lying deviant, it all just strikes me as ignorance. You can have issues with your gender and sexuality and take issue with your country's foreign policy, those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

 Crablezworth wrote:
So he didn't like being in the military and struggled with his gender and sexuality, how is the indicative that he's lying about his motivations for leaking the information? He's been an open book on everything. The alternative perspective I hear being offered is essentially he's a self absorbed fringe dwelling character and the leaking was his only possible escape from the military. Somehow that seems like bs. The fact that he maintained the level of access to sensitive data even after his less than in the closeted struggle and his acting out says more about the military's utter incompetence than manning's apparent "fallacious motivations" for leaking.

I believe it says more about how hungry we were for even bad intel guys, and our unwillingness to get raked over the coals for properly handling a feth-up like Manning by some liberal jackass with an agenda because he happened to be gay.

No one but you used the term deviant, Crablezworth.

Take a deep breath and actually read what is being posted.

Or read between the lines of what is being heavily inferred.

 Seaward wrote:

I believe it says more about how hungry we were for even bad intel guys, and our unwillingness to get raked over the coals for properly handling a feth-up like Manning by some liberal jackass with an agenda because he happened to be gay.

His chain of command, from front line supervisor to BN CDR all screwed up. He did enough that I would have yanked his local clearance and submitted enough derog to CCF that he lost it permanently and would have had to reclass WAY before they ever deployed. (And yes I have done that.)

It is always better to deploy one crap bag less than have to deal with a 'two soldier soldier" as one of my 1SGs used to call them (because it took a good soldier to constantly ride the crap bag just to get any real productivity from them). Weak leadership unwilling to do the right thing contributed to what happened. Having said that, it does NOT mitigate what convict Manning did. He alone is responsible for the choices he made and will get to think about that in the pen.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Or read between the lines of what is being heavily inferred.

I've inferred nothing. If you want to think I hate transgendered folks and will create malicious lies about them, go right ahead, but that's just your own prejudice talking at that point.

What I have noted was that when he went home on his mid-tour leave, he created a female persona, then when he returned to Iraq he tried using that to get booted. Hence my calling him a Klinger wanna-be.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Or read between the lines of what is being heavily inferred.

See that's what I thought, too, but if you look closely, he was replying directly to someone saying "is there any evidence that he was trying to get out of the military", which suggests that it was a list of evidence showing he was trying to get out, which is valid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manning may or may not be legitimately transgendered, but there is evidence that he was trying to get caught with it on purpose.

 djones520 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Or read between the lines of what is being heavily inferred.

I've inferred nothing. If you want to think I hate transgendered folks and will create malicious lies about them, go right ahead, but that's just your own prejudice talking at that point.

What I have noted was that when he went home on his mid-tour leave, he created a female persona, then when he returned to Iraq he tried using that to get booted. Hence my calling him a Klinger wanna-be.

I guess my question is why does being a klinger wanna-be call his motivations for leaking into question? You can have multiple reasons for any action. He had plenty of reasons to leak just like he had plenty of reasons to no want to be part of the military. One doesn't invalidate the other. Can you imagine being gay with gender issues and struggling with your county's motivations for going to war and it's practiced apathy towards said war all the while having a first hand unfiltered view of what's actually happening? I don't see these as seperate issues, one being used to cloak the other, I see it as one big picture.

Again, back to my main point, how is he not a reliable source on his own motivations? How many lies has he been caught telling? How many contradictions? Give me something here people.

Becuase it shows the depths he'd sink to in order to remove himself from a situation he found he didn't like.

If spending another year or two in the Army was enough he'd invent a transgender persona (allegedly fake), then how far would he go to avoid life in prison?

Frankly, his motivation/intent was only important for the 'aiding the enemy' charge. His actions are what got him convicted on the others.

Where are the allegations he was faking the female persona?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
Frankly, his motivation/intent was only important for the 'aiding the enemy' charge. His actions are what got him convicted on the others.

That's a fair point. His actions did have consequences.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Where are the allegations he was faking the female persona?

I'd say the fact that it didn't seem to exist until he was deployed, had a lot of trouble there, then went home on mid-tour leave, and started dressing up as a lady. He never provided any indication of being transgendered until after he was already in a load of gak with the Army. When this tactic didn't work, he stepped it up to the point of assualting a female soldier.

He had a progressive trend of trying more and more extreme tactics to be removed from the military, that is why I say he was faking it.

 Jihadin wrote:
couldn't even do "family care plan" way to get out...

What does this mean?

 kronk wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
couldn't even do "family care plan" way to get out...

What does this mean?

The Family Care Plan is something we have that ensures there is something in place for our dependants when we deploy/get injured/bite the big one. It's a required thing for many of us with a family, especially if your spouse is also in the military, disabled, or you just don't have a spouse.

Refusing to accomplish a family care plan can result in getting the axe, because the military cannot legally deploy you while your dependants are left uncared for.

I see. Thanks.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Can you imagine being gay with gender issues and struggling with your county's motivations for going to war and it's practiced apathy towards said war all the while having a first hand unfiltered view of what's actually happening?

No, but then I actually bothered learning the basics about the military before even thinking about applying for OCS. There wasn't a gun to his head forcing him to enlist, unless you count the inability to hold a job.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Or read between the lines of what is being heavily inferred.

Or make up things to pretend to be outraged by.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Or read between the lines of what is being heavily inferred.

Or make up things to pretend to be outraged by.

If I had a nickel for every time I saw that on the internet... I don't know, but I'd have a lot of nickels.

 Seaward wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Can you imagine being gay with gender issues and struggling with your county's motivations for going to war and it's practiced apathy towards said war all the while having a first hand unfiltered view of what's actually happening?

No, but then I actually bothered learning the basics about the military before even thinking about applying for OCS. There wasn't a gun to his head forcing him to enlist, unless you count the inability to hold a job.

Pretty sure that the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy has been around for longer than Pvt. Manning has been enlisted, also did Pvt Manning volunteer for service before or after military action begin in Afghanistan?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Can you imagine being gay with gender issues and struggling with your county's motivations for going to war and it's practiced apathy towards said war all the while having a first hand unfiltered view of what's actually happening?

No, but then I actually bothered learning the basics about the military before even thinking about applying for OCS. There wasn't a gun to his head forcing him to enlist, unless you count the inability to hold a job.

Pretty sure that the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy has been around for longer than Pvt. Manning has been enlisted, also did Pvt Manning volunteer for service before or after military action begin in Afghanistan?

Yes to both. None of this was a surprise for him. Being in Intel, he know what was going on over there long before he went.